2013 (11) TMI 1347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....11,12,248/- besides interest at the appropriate rate on the amount confirmed, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; penalty of Rs.4,73,51,539/- was imposed under Section 11AC, and penalty of Rs.2.00 lakh under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Chairman of the Petitioner Company. It is the admitted factual scenario that the Petitioner Company is a manufacturer of cooling towers of small, medium and large sizes. The dispute pertains to large cooling towers. Cooling towers are covered by the Tariff Entry 848940. 2. Proceedings were initiated by the show cause notice dated 22.04.2009 for the period, 2004-05 and 2007-08. According to Revenue, the Petitioner failed to declare the value of certain components of large....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....]. The latter judgment relied on the earlier judgment to conclude that an air-conditioning plant ought to be considered as an immovable property. Revenues appeals in both the cases were dismissed by the Supreme Court. In support of their proposition that large cooling towers are immovable property, the Petitioner also relied on other decisions:- (i) 2011(270) ELT 541(Tri.-Mum) Voltus Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai; (ii) 2002(145)ELT 696(Tri.-Del.) Arvind Singh vs. CCE, Indore; and (iii) 2004(17)ELT 281(Tri.-Bang.) Kerala State Electronics Dev. Corpn. vs. CCE, Cochin. 5. Per contra, Revenue relies on the judgment (of the Supreme Court) in 2004(166)ELT 154(SC) [Mallur Siddeswara Spinning Mills(P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Coimbatore.] The issue in Mallur Sidd....